GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:01 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Where did I promote this? I've said on many occasions that a transition to H2 only makes sense if the goal is to make it 100% renewable at some point in the not-too-distant future. That it won't be initially is obvious, just as most electricity isn't 100% renewable yet, but that is the goal for both. Otherwise it's not worth the attempt.
The belief that a so-called "hydrogen economy" will eventually become a zero-emission economy is the highest form of naivete. You have to believe a lot of false things to come to that conclusion, not least of which is that the oil companies who are investing so heavily in converting their operations over to sell hydrogen instead of gasoline and diesel will simply pull out some day. The reality is that they intend to capture and hold the lions share of that market.

The *only* way to prevent that eventuality is to keep H2 where it is today: an also-ran.

And we know we differ on whether it's worth trying, given the uncertainty of success of all current approaches. As to energy companies being involved, sure they are, just as they are or have been involved with both batteries (first commercial Li battery was developed and sold by Exxon) and PV modules (I've seen and/or sold modules made by Shell, Arco and BP). I don't care who does it, only that it gets done, and the energy companies have the means to do things on a large scale. They'd happily develop and sell sand if they could make big profits from it.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:05 pm

GRA wrote:I don't care who does it, only that it gets done, and the energy companies have the means to do things on a large scale.
Yeah, let's just keep putting huge ships full of toxic hydrocarbons on our oceans. In fact, let's do more of it than ever before!

Who cares?
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:09 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:I don't care who does it, only that it gets done, and the energy companies have the means to do things on a large scale.
Yeah, let's just keep putting huge ships full of toxic hydrocarbons on our oceans. In fact, let's do more of it than ever before!

Who cares?

I thought you did, Reg, and I certainly do. But given the choice between continuing to ship and use petroleum all over the world until it runs out, or shipping non-renewable H2 to initiate a possible transition to renewable H2 if BEVs and batteries don't make it, I'll choose the one that gives us more options.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:19 pm

GRA wrote:I thought you did, Reg, and I certainly do.
You could have fooled us. In this case, you continued to pump this development after I pointed out how bad it really is multiple times and even then the most we get out of you is "I certainly do" followed by more promotion of this terrible idea.
GRA wrote:But given the choice between continuing to ship and use petroleum all over the world until it runs out, or shipping non-renewable H2 to initiate a possible transition to renewable H2 if BEVs and batteries don't make it, I'll choose the one that gives us more options.
You should try to grasp the reality of Jevon's Paradox. This new, highly-polluting development does not reduce the amount of petroleum being used: It only adds to it.

If you want to drive fossil fuels out of the marketplace, the way to do it is NOT to purchase MORE from them. That's moving in exactly the opposite direction.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:40 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:I thought you did, Reg, and I certainly do.
You could have fooled us. In this case, you continued to pump this development after I pointed out how bad it really is multiple times and even then the most we get out of you is "I certainly do" followed by more promotion of this terrible idea.
GRA wrote:But given the choice between continuing to ship and use petroleum all over the world until it runs out, or shipping non-renewable H2 to initiate a possible transition to renewable H2 if BEVs and batteries don't make it, I'll choose the one that gives us more options.
You should try to grasp the reality of Jevon's Paradox. This new, highly-polluting development does not reduce the amount of petroleum being used: It only adds to it.

If you want to drive fossil fuels out of the marketplace, the way to do it is NOT to purchase MORE from them. That's moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Reg, I didn't 'pump' this development, I reported it, and when asked said that I would prefer that it were being done differently. Japan is establishing the infrastructure to support an H2 economy, if that can be developed.

Japan, will be importing fossil-fuel energy for a very long time to come, and personally I prefer this to coal imports from Australia, which is where a lot of their future energy is coming from, e.g.:
Australia Sees Miners Winning Highest Japan Coal Deal Since 2012
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-08/australia-sees-miners-winning-highest-japan-coal-deal-since-2012

Japan is also considering sourcing H2 from Australian coal, and given the choice between that and H2 from NG, I much prefer the NG:
Australia's AGL to host coal-to-liquid hydrogen export trial for Japan's Kawasaki Heavy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-hydrogen-australia/australias-agl-to-host-coal-to-liquid-hydrogen-export-trial-for-japans-kawasaki-heavy-idUSKBN1HJ0ET

By themselves these are emissions-shifting mechanisms with little if any overall benefit to total emissions, much like the efforts we discussed below in the 'AFV Truck/Commercial vehicle and Non-BEV Bus' thread. But as Brunei's main industry is petroleum and NG, I doubt this represents a significant increase in pollution for them. It's a question of choosing the least worst, which also has to be acceptable to the public. Here's another example:

GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote: Via GCC:
Flint MTA testing Proterra hydrogen fuel cell bus prototype for one year
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/10 ... ntmta.html

Another natural-gas-fueled vehicle hits the road, but at significantly higher cost and damage to the environment. From the press release:
Flint MTA wrote:

The hydrogen fuel used is produced through steam reforming natural gas.

Interestingly, I do not see any mention of this effort from Proterra. They only mention BEV buses on their website AFAICT. All of their BEV buses offer a top speed of 65 MPH and two of the 40-foot versions offer a longer range than this fuel-cell vehicle. Also, one 35-foot as well as one 40-foot bus offer 251 miles of range.

It's an interesting question whether this bus, using NG reformed via SMR, or the BEV buses in Louisville, using 87% coal-generated electricity, are dirtier. Neither makes much sense IMO - an HEV bus would seem to be cleaner. Still, this is primarily a cold-weather test of a single FCEV bus so it's no big deal that they're using H2 from SMR, unlike the Louisville fleet which will be running off coal-fired electricity for over a decade and probably a lot longer than that, as long as Senator "Coal is good for you. Here, eat some!" McConnell is representing them. It would be most useful if Flint ran an FCEV and a BEV bus side by side.
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=474204&hilit=louisville#p474155

The main advantage of starting these projects, as with the BEV buses in Louisville and the FCEV buses, is that once they've built the infrastructure and gotten used to the tech, they can always clean up the source of the energy. Whether you or I consider it the best way to go is irrelevant. And that's really all I have to say on the matter.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:32 pm

Via GCC:
Toyota and partners launch low-carbon hydrogen supply-chain project in Japan
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180426-toyotah2.html

In Japan, Aichi Prefecture, Chita City, Toyota City, Chubu Electric Power, Toho Gas, Toyota Motor Corporation, and Toyota Industries have launched the Chita City and Toyota City Renewable Energy-use Low-carbon Hydrogen Project.

The project is a first step toward realizing the 2030 vision of a low-carbon hydrogen supply chain formulated by the Aichi Low-carbon Hydrogen Supply Chain Promotion Association, a body which includes the Aichi prefectural government, companies operating within the prefecture, municipal authorities, and experts. The goal of all entities is the realization of a hydrogen-based society spanning the entire region through mutual coordination and all-inclusive efforts. . . .

Main points. Building on Japan’s Strategic Roadmap for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells as well as the Basic Hydrogen Strategy, the 2030 Vision aims to achieve a hydrogen-based society ahead of the rest of country, leveraging the prefecture’s experience and expertise in monozukuri (all-encompassing approach to manufacturing).

The three pillars of the 2030 Vision are:

    Sustained development of a regional low-carbon hydrogen supply chain;

    Carbon reduction in the various fields of electricity, transport, heating and industrial processes; and

    Elimination of dependence on fossil fuels through the expansion of hydrogen distribution volumes over a wider area.

The project. The project is designed to construct a subsistent low-carbon hydrogen supply chain to produce, supply, and use hydrogen generated from renewable resources within the prefecture, as the first step toward achieving the 2030 Vision.

In this project, Toho Gas is expected to produce city gas using biogas generated from sewage sludge at the Chita City Southern Sewage Treatment Center, which is then transported to Toyota’s Motomachi Plant through existing city gas pipelines. The city gas derived from biogas is passed through gas reformers at the Motomachi Plant, whereby low-carbon hydrogen, which is used to power the Toyota Industries fuel cell forklifts (FC forklifts) in the plant, is produced, compressed, and stored.

Additionally, by supplying Toyota with renewable energy from Chubu Electric Power generated at the Toyota City Togari Clean Center through heat from waste incineration (biomass incineration heat), CO2 emissions from city gas that would be used when there is a biogas shortage can be offset. . . .

The project is designed to transport renewable energy—such as biogas used for hydrogen production—through the existing energy infrastructure of city gas pipes and the electrical grid to produce and supply hydrogen near where it is used. This will allow costs to be reduced by eliminating the amount of capital investment necessary for the facilities required to compress and transport hydrogen, as well as their maintenance expenses, and to achieve early commercialization through the use of existing energy infrastructure.

In the future, in addition to discovering and using biogas and developing new renewable resources, such as biomass power generation and wind power generation, the partners intend to expand the deployment of fuel cell forklifts and the use of hydrogen through the early introduction of industrial-use fuel cells and small-scale hydrogen generation inside plants.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed May 09, 2018 5:25 pm

Via GCC:
UQM Technologies announces new China and Europe growth of fuel cell compressor business
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-uqm.html

UQM Technologies announced recent orders from five new customers in China and two new customers in Europe for UQM fuel cell compressor systems for fuel cell development programs. . . .

China is at the beginning of developing fuel cell vehicles and fueling infrastructure, and by 2020 plans to have 10,000 fuel cell vehicles on the road with the infrastructure to support the growth. . . .


I occasionally post articles about lab R&D, just to show where effort is being made. As always with lab R&D results there's no guarantee that the tech/process will ever be commercialized, and even if it is it will be some years before that happens. So, with that in mind, here's three articles via GCC on ways to increase efficiency/reduce costs of renewable H2 production:

Artificial enzymatic pathway delivers 1,000-fold enhancement in H2 produced by biological water splitting; more than 1g H2/L/h
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-zhang.html

Researchers from Virginia Tech developed an in vitro artificial enzymatic pathway that can produce hydrogen at extremely high rates by splitting water energized by carbohydrates (e.g., starch). As reported in a paper in the RSC journal Energy & Environmental Science, the pathway delivered up to a 1,000-fold enhancement in volumetric productivity of hydrogen, achieving a milestone of more than one gram of hydrogen per liter per hour. . . .


New protocol to enhance photosynthetic production of hydrogen from green algae
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-turku.html

A research group from the University of Turku, Finland, has developed a new protocol to deliver sustained hydrogen photoproduction in green algae under a train of strong white light pulses interrupted by longer dark phases. As reported in a paper in the RSC journal Energy & Environmental Science, under the new protocol, hydrogen photoproduction proceeds for up to 3 days with the maximum rate occurring in the first 6 hours. . . .


Exeter team develops low-cost photoelectrode for spontaneous water-splitting using sunlight
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-exeter.html

Researchers at the University of Exeter (UK) have developed a novel p-type LaFeO3 photoelectrode using an inexpensive and scalable spray pyrolysis method. The nanostructured photoelectrode results in spontaneous hydrogen evolution from water without any external bias applied with a faradaic efficiency of 30% and excellent stability.

The researchers believe this new type of photoelectrode is not only cheap to produce, but can also be recreated on a larger scale for mass and worldwide use. An open-access paper on the work is published in Scientific Reports. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed May 09, 2018 6:58 pm

Just found this, although it dates from Feb. 11th:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
High-Pressure Hydrogen Gas Cylinder
Fire During Transportation
Diamond Bar, California
February 11, 2018
HMD18FR001
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HMD18FR001-preliminary.pdf

. . . Preliminary findings from the investigation include the following:

    • The 25 aluminum-lined carbon composite gas cylinders were each 120 inches in length,
    17.8 inches in diameter, and had a nominal water capacity of 18,716 cubic inches
    (312.9 liters).

    • The cylinder module was shipped with all but one cylinder full. Each cylinder contained
    about 10.0 kg of hydrogen at a pressure of approximately 7,500 PSI gauge (psig).

    • Cylinder damage was limited to fire exposure. Twenty of the cylinders exhibited varying
    degrees of fire exposure, but none of them were breached
    (see Figure 2).

    Pressure relief devices activated on 12 of the cylinders.

    • The cylinder manufacturer specifications call for type CG-5 pressure relief devices set at
    10,000 psig.1 However, NTSB investigators and investigation party members found
    pressure relief devices set at an incorrect pressure rating of 5,833 psig installed in three
    of the cylinders. Two of these under-rated pressure relief devices had activated. The
    source of the incorrect pressure relief devices is under investigation.

    • The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
    relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
    became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
    of the trailer, which fueled the fire. The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
    the compression fittings.

    • The incorrectly rated pressure relief devices and unsecured vent tubing were not identified
    during the cylinder requalification inspections at FIBA Technologies Inc.

    • Responding to initial findings, Air Products inspected its remaining fleet of 13 hydrogen
    cylinder modules. One trailer undergoing qualification inspection was found to have a
    cylinder with an underrated pressure relief device. Improperly secured vent tubing was
    found in about half of all the lines inspected.

    • Air Products and FIBA have revised the requalification inspection procedures to address
    fittings securement and pressure relief device compatibility.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 8670
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri May 11, 2018 2:26 pm

Looking around the NTSB website I found one previous accident (May 2001) involving a gaseous H2 tanker (Type 3 rather than Type 4 tanks) and another vehicle. For those who are interested, the final report, conclusions and recommendations can be found here :https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HZM0202.pdf
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Zythryn
Posts: 1023
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:49 am

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri May 11, 2018 2:58 pm

GRA wrote:Just found this, although it dates from Feb. 11th:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
High-Pressure Hydrogen Gas Cylinder
Fire During Transportation
Diamond Bar, California
February 11, 2018
HMD18FR001
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HMD18FR001-preliminary.pdf

. . . Preliminary findings from the investigation include the following:

    • The 25 aluminum-lined carbon composite gas cylinders were each 120 inches in length,
    17.8 inches in diameter, and had a nominal water capacity of 18,716 cubic inches
    (312.9 liters).

    • The cylinder module was shipped with all but one cylinder full. Each cylinder contained
    about 10.0 kg of hydrogen at a pressure of approximately 7,500 PSI gauge (psig).

    • Cylinder damage was limited to fire exposure.Twenty of the cylinders exhibited varying
    degrees of fire exposure, but none of them were breached[/b] (see Figure 2).

    • Pressure relief devices activated on 12 of the cylinders.

    • The cylinder manufacturer specifications call for type CG-5 pressure relief devices set at
    10,000 psig.1 However, NTSB investigators and investigation party members found
    pressure relief devices set at an incorrect pressure rating of 5,833 psig installed in three
    of the cylinders. Two of these under-rated pressure relief devices had activated.
    The
    source of the incorrect pressure relief devices is under investigation.

    The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
    relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
    became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
    of the trailer, which fueled the fire. The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
    the compression fittings.

    • The incorrectly rated pressure relief devices and unsecured vent tubing were not identified
    during the cylinder requalification inspections at FIBA Technologies Inc.


    • Responding to initial findings, Air Products inspected its remaining fleet of 13 hydrogen
    cylinder modules. One trailer undergoing qualification inspection was found to have a
    cylinder with an underrated pressure relief device. Improperly secured vent tubing was
    found in about half of all the lines inspected.

    • Air Products and FIBA have revised the requalification inspection procedures to address
    fittings securement and pressure relief device compatibility.


Interesting how the same piece can read very different simply by changing the bolder text.
Previous owner of Prius, Volt, Leaf & Model S
Current owner of Model 3
http://www.netzeromn.com

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”